Scientist and virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka has written two referenced articles analysing issues in virus theory. The articles are linked at the bottom of this post. Knowing about the analysis will help expand your health knowledge.
I’ve summarised below some of the key points from the articles.
Rethinking the virus theory of disease
In the 1950s, the accepted germ theory of disease was disproven, but the concept of unseen “germs” causing sickness continued as the viral infection theory.
Stefan says modern virus science relies on contested research like John Enders’ disputed 1954 measles study, but still lacks scientific proof by standard criteria.
For example, images of viruses are actually of dying cell particles, not stand-alone viruses, and genetic codes said to identify viruses come from normal human cells, not separate isolated viruses.
Understanding control experiments
Stefan explains that control studies are key for quality science. They compare a test condition to a controlled condition to see if they differ in the expected way.
For viruses, proper control experiments would test non-infected, healthy samples for the same genetic bits said to indicate viruses in sick samples.
If controls contained the same “viral” bits, it would debunk the idea that those cell particles and codes uniquely identify viruses. They would just be normal cell outputs unrelated to viruses.
Lanka however says virology lacks these proper comparisons of sick and healthy samples. This allows misinterpreting harmless cell debris as dangerous virus pathogens.
Stefan’s articles summaris that pathogenic viruses (viruses that make people unwell) are an unproven assumption.
Examining PCR “viral” tests
Stefan explains that polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests multiply a small genetic segment to study in detail. PCR requires first knowing the target sequence to multiply.
This means isolating and sequencing an intact viral genome to design matching PCR primers. Stefan states however that various PCR “viral” tests were developed without proper virus isolation and sequencing.
So he says that current PCR tests could just be amplifying genetic bits from anyone’s cells, not unique viral genes. Yet they’re used to track “viral spread” and guide huge decisions without proof they reliably indicate virus infection.
The PDFs present that Lanka concludes we should require rock-solid proof before social disruption.
Advancing health knowledge
Based on the science gaps outlined in his articles, Stefan concludes that – lacking isolation, characterization, sequencing, and controls, the science of virology has not strictly proven invading viruses exist as blamed disease causes.
He says that Instead of invading germs, “viral” illnesses may arise from misunderstandings of complex cell particles made naturally during healing. Rather than pathogens, this cell debris could represent meaningful damage recovery outputs.
Stefan suggests starting with proper comparison studies, which could instantly calm panic by showing reactions even in healthy samples. This would discredit current “viral” tests for diagnosing active infection.
Increasing your awareness for your health
Stefan says that understanding both the history and current uncertainties equips us to promote ethics in health research and medicine.
Now is the time to grow through respectful learning and sharing across all backgrounds and then, as Stefan says, we can thoughtfully guide science and health literacy for the greater good.
I have created a free course where you or anyone can learn what to know and ask about virology and viruses. You can access the course by clicking here.